4 ms·

They also spent $2.8m on travel and conferences in 2019 [0], which is more than they spent on internet hosting... [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fo

They also spent $2.8m on travel and conferences in 2019 [0], which is more than they spent on internet hosting... [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikimedia_Foundation_Audit_Report_-_FY18-19.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim... (page 13)

arnaudsm 6y ago
Which is 3% of their total expenses that year. Considering how much exposure and grants conferences can bring to a non-profit, it seems fair.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  I can understand that, but the more surprising thing was that hosting is even less...
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Hosting a static site doesn't sound that expensive, plus they're likely not paying for a premium & costly cloud provider like AWS/Azure.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Wikimedia isn't completely static…
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        Okay, sure - but many, many more reads than writes. That is cheaper to implement with caching, CDN, etc.
jonas21 6y ago
This seems like the typical HN meme of looking at something and assuming the technical piece is all there is to it. Wikipedia's biggest challenge over the years hasn't been building or hosting its website. It's been convincing the world that an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone on the Internet is a credible and neutral source of information. One of the ways you do that is by speaking at conferences, traveling to meet with people, etc.
- jahlove 6y ago
  The only reason I checked was because of Jimmy Wales' past controversy regarding use of the foundation's credit card [0]: > Wool wrote that Wales had asked the foundation to reimburse him for costly items like a $1,300 dinner for four at a Florida steakhouse. Wool alleged that at one point Wales was short on receipts for $30,000 in expenses before settling the matter with the foundation's lawyer and paying the organization $7,000. > Wool added that Wales' foundation credit card was taken away in 2006. [0] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-accused-of-expenses-rort-20080305-gds3ve.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-acc...
  - jononor 6y ago
    14 years ago, and sounds like they handled it well.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  > It's been convincing the world that an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone on the Internet is a credible and neutral source of information. This is not wikimedia's job at all. The public can decide if they trust the content.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    Are you suggesting that in the face of existing encyclopedia companies, generations of people who had always used print encyclopedias, and the general public still figuring out what the internet is all about, Wikimedia should be restrained from answering criticisms or making a case for their value? That seems... odd.
    - dlubarov 6y ago
      Eh, Wikipedia is 20 years old, and has been a top 20 site for the past 15 years. At this point, they don't have much serious competition. Britannica stopped printing physical encyclopedias in 2012. The WMF can certainly make their case and answer criticisms, but there are cost-efficient ways of doing that. I don't see much value in funding parties, conferences, etc. for a product that has already dominated in most markets.
mhh__ 6y ago
Is that all that bad considering that Wikipedia is arguably one of the most important organisations on earth? If it was as corrupt as the NRA (which is why NY is moving to dissolve them), then I would agree with the sentiment but a few million sounds about right (About 9k per employee)
triceratops 6y ago
How do they spend so little on internet hosting? They're one of the top 10 websites in the world. Are servers and bandwidth really that cheap? It's not like it's all text either - they serve images, audio, and video too. Anyone know if someone donates hosting resources to them? I simply cannot imagine serving that much traffic on < $3m.
- etc-hosts 6y ago
  It's because a large portion of traffic to Wikipedia, that is a response to google serving a search request with results involving Wikipedia, is served to the client with a Knowledge Graph box. A large portion of viewers ingest the text of the Knowledge Graph box and don't click through to a page served by Wikipedia's servers.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Wikipedia counts that as "their" traffic? I'd find that surprising.
    - kemayo 6y ago
      I think that what etc-hosts is saying is that it's traffic to Wikipedia-information that isn't reflected as traffic that Wikimedia has to pay for. I.e. that it has siphoned off a whole bunch of pageloads that otherwise would have cost money.
smsm42 6y ago
That doesn't include salaries of the people who run it - and WMF doesn't just rent servers from AWS, like it's in fashion now, they run everything by themselves from the bare metal up, and they run it over multiple data centers over the globe. This probably also doesn't include the cost of the hardware (this likely is part of "depreciation and amortization" since the cost of a server usually is amortized over several years). And if you've been on any of those conferences (it's not hard to get in, there are a lot of people invited) - they aren't exactly luxury affairs, they usually happen in a library or university and constitute of a crowd of geeks sitting in groups arguing or staring at computer screens, or sometimes presenting slides to other geeks. Those aren't exactly lavish affairs. Of course, some people get their hotel bill and travel paid for, but given those people help building such enormous site as Wikipedia, it's not that huge of an expense.

arnaudsm 6y ago

Which is 3% of their total expenses that year. Considering how much exposure and grants conferences can bring to a non-profit, it seems fair.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
I can understand that, but the more surprising thing was that hosting is even less...
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Hosting a static site doesn't sound that expensive, plus they're likely not paying for a premium & costly cloud provider like AWS/Azure.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Wikimedia isn't completely static…
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      Okay, sure - but many, many more reads than writes. That is cheaper to implement with caching, CDN, etc.

jonas21 6y ago

This seems like the typical HN meme of looking at something and assuming the technical piece is all there is to it. Wikipedia's biggest challenge over the years hasn't been building or hosting its website. It's been convincing the world that an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone on the Internet is a credible and neutral source of information. One of the ways you do that is by speaking at conferences, traveling to meet with people, etc.

jahlove 6y ago
The only reason I checked was because of Jimmy Wales' past controversy regarding use of the foundation's credit card [0]: > Wool wrote that Wales had asked the foundation to reimburse him for costly items like a $1,300 dinner for four at a Florida steakhouse. Wool alleged that at one point Wales was short on receipts for $30,000 in expenses before settling the matter with the foundation's lawyer and paying the organization $7,000. > Wool added that Wales' foundation credit card was taken away in 2006. [0] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-accused-of-expenses-rort-20080305-gds3ve.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-acc...
- jononor 6y ago
  14 years ago, and sounds like they handled it well.
alisonkisk 6y ago
> It's been convincing the world that an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone on the Internet is a credible and neutral source of information. This is not wikimedia's job at all. The public can decide if they trust the content.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  Are you suggesting that in the face of existing encyclopedia companies, generations of people who had always used print encyclopedias, and the general public still figuring out what the internet is all about, Wikimedia should be restrained from answering criticisms or making a case for their value? That seems... odd.
  - dlubarov 6y ago
    Eh, Wikipedia is 20 years old, and has been a top 20 site for the past 15 years. At this point, they don't have much serious competition. Britannica stopped printing physical encyclopedias in 2012. The WMF can certainly make their case and answer criticisms, but there are cost-efficient ways of doing that. I don't see much value in funding parties, conferences, etc. for a product that has already dominated in most markets.

mhh__ 6y ago

Is that all that bad considering that Wikipedia is arguably one of the most important organisations on earth? If it was as corrupt as the NRA (which is why NY is moving to dissolve them), then I would agree with the sentiment but a few million sounds about right (About 9k per employee)

triceratops 6y ago

How do they spend so little on internet hosting? They're one of the top 10 websites in the world. Are servers and bandwidth really that cheap? It's not like it's all text either - they serve images, audio, and video too. Anyone know if someone donates hosting resources to them? I simply cannot imagine serving that much traffic on < $3m.

etc-hosts 6y ago
It's because a large portion of traffic to Wikipedia, that is a response to google serving a search request with results involving Wikipedia, is served to the client with a Knowledge Graph box. A large portion of viewers ingest the text of the Knowledge Graph box and don't click through to a page served by Wikipedia's servers.
- triceratops 6y ago
  Wikipedia counts that as "their" traffic? I'd find that surprising.
  - kemayo 6y ago
    I think that what etc-hosts is saying is that it's traffic to Wikipedia-information that isn't reflected as traffic that Wikimedia has to pay for. I.e. that it has siphoned off a whole bunch of pageloads that otherwise would have cost money.

smsm42 6y ago

That doesn't include salaries of the people who run it - and WMF doesn't just rent servers from AWS, like it's in fashion now, they run everything by themselves from the bare metal up, and they run it over multiple data centers over the globe. This probably also doesn't include the cost of the hardware (this likely is part of "depreciation and amortization" since the cost of a server usually is amortized over several years). And if you've been on any of those conferences (it's not hard to get in, there are a lot of people invited) - they aren't exactly luxury affairs, they usually happen in a library or university and constitute of a crowd of geeks sitting in groups arguing or staring at computer screens, or sometimes presenting slides to other geeks. Those aren't exactly lavish affairs. Of course, some people get their hotel bill and travel paid for, but given those people help building such enormous site as Wikipedia, it's not that huge of an expense.